memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Black hole (Star Trek 2009) = Temporal rift?
Black Hole = Temporal rift? I just looked at the page temporal rift and noticed that the black hole in the was not mentioned as being a temporal refit. If you think about it the movie was very similar to . They time traveled by going through an anomaly. Kathryn Janeway said herself that it was a temporal rift. Can I put the black hole as an example under temporal rift page? --Jmanyc 21:46, November 28, 2010 (UTC) : This one black hole was a kind of temporal rift, but not all black holes are temporal rifts. As long as no one gets the impression that all holes are temporal rifts, you can add this example, in my opinion. --Mark McWire 23:11, November 28, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree but I would like to get a few more opinions --Jmanyc 00:08, November 29, 2010 (UTC) : Although we can not even safe to assume that this is a real black hole. The film is full of deviations from the real world and the rest of "Star Trek" universe, just think of the faster than light supernova.. the largest astronomical s... that you can think of. ;) I think, that was an anonymous temporal anomaly and the black hole only an interpretation of the observer. --Mark McWire 00:32, November 29, 2010 (UTC) ::It shouldn't be added. There are tons of phenomenon in Star Trek capable of transporting a ship or person through time, and they are often referred to as different things. What exactly is the difference between a temporal rift and a temporal distortion? I don't know, but we should assume the characters know what they're talking about. It was only referred to as a "black hole" in the movie, so calling it anything else would be speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 04:13, November 29, 2010 (UTC) : A temporal rift is a tunnel-like phenomenon in space-time continuum. This description applies to the "black hole" in Star Trek 11 to. A temporal distortion is, however, as the name implies, a change in the linearity in the time continuum. A temporal rift caused a temporal distortion. A normal black hole, it is definitely not. t can not be normal because it's created out of red matter (a material which is not in reality exist) and not from the collapse of a red supergiant. We do not know what hires the "red matter" with the space-time continuum. In addition, the missing mass in the process of creation speaks against an ordinary black hole. If you want to be really subtle, we should treat this phenomenon as its own, so no temporal rift or black hole. --Mark McWire 08:54, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :::According to your definition, temporal vortex, energy vortex and transwarp conduit are all temporal rifts - they are "tunnel-like in space-time". That mustn't mean, however, that we go around and merge all content from those three (and probably other) pages to the temporal rift page. That would introduce a lot of speculation into our content because, as has been stated, it would be based on the assumption that the characters do not know what they're talking about and instead invent new terminology for the same thing every other week. -- Cid Highwind 10:41, November 29, 2010 (UTC) : So I thought not. We know from or or , like a black hole (or singularity) looks like. We also know how the black hole in looks like, so I can see that there are different things. Whatever that was in Star Trek XI, it was not a "normal" black hole. In principle, it was an unknown space anomaly that a temporal transition created in the space-time continuum. The film has too much broken with existing astronomical concepts, as one can take his choice of words really mean. --Mark McWire 11:19, November 29, 2010 (UTC) Edit: --Mark McWire 11:34, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :::We still do not ignore explicitly stated terms and make up our own definitions just because special effects have changed. Something that has been called a "black hole" does not magically become a "temporal rift" because its make-believe attributes do not match the attributes of another make-believe black hole. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, November 29, 2010 (UTC) : The phenomenon is a form of temporal rift, even if it looks like a black hole or consists of a black hole. This thing has the properties of a temporal rift and does exactly what a temporal rift well, so there is also such. --Mark McWire 12:03, November 29, 2010 (UTC) Edit: --Mark McWire 12:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Only if "temporal rift" is not the term for a specific phenomenon, but an umbrella term for a whole class of phenomena (which, then, might include the phenomena I brought up earlier). I'm not sure we can safely make that assumption. -- Cid Highwind 12:22, November 29, 2010 (UTC) : For a specific phenomenon is the term too general. A temporal rift simply means that there is a point of transit to another part of space-time continuum. Nothing more, nothing less. This applies, in principle, even for a wormhole. Speaking of wormhole: "TORAT: Interspatial flexure? Why didn't you say so in the first place. He said wormhole, a layman's term that that covers any number of phenomena." There was even canonized, that it is a very general term. Most of technobabble in Star Trek is very general if not arbitrary. Precise statements are generally avoided, so you call the things simple such as "temporal rift". Just to make this clear: I do not want the "ST XI" phenomenon is removed from "black hole", but I advocate a reference to "temporal rift".--Mark McWire 13:01, November 29, 2010 (UTC) References in the film I have now sat down again and looked at the transcript for the film. Then I noticed the following sentence: SPOCK: The engineering comprehension necessary to artificially create a black hole may suggest an answer. Such technology could theoretically be manipulated to create a tunnel through space-time. Spock separated here between black holes and space-time tunnel. --Mark McWire 13:24, November 29, 2010 (UTC) This means that the tunnel, through Nero and Spock I have traveled, an independent phenomenon, it is certainly incurred in connection with the black hole, but is not a black hole. --Mark McWire 13:27, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :Can I just remind you that this is the discussion page for "temporal rift"? If you want to discuss whether the black hole in Trek'09 was a black hole or not (which your quote really doesn't disprove), please let's have that discussion over at Talk:Black hole. -- Cid Highwind 13:31, November 29, 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying that it was not a black hole, I say that where Spock and Nero have traveled through a form of "temporal rift" was. This rift was created together with the black hole from the red matter. I think this quote is an indication for this interpretation. --Mark McWire 13:41, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :No. That quote is an indication for one character believing it to be a theoretical possibility that black holes can also be used to travel through time (circumstances permitting). That Spock's explanation meets somewhere in the middle with your assumption of all "tunnels through space-time" being called "temporal rifts" doesn't necessarily make that part a hard fact. -- Cid Highwind 14:09, November 29, 2010 (UTC) Wrong. Not the black hole but an unspecified space-time tunnel, which is also formed. --Mark McWire 14:25, November 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Black hole ≠ Temporal rift. - 14:37, November 29, 2010 (UTC) :::It may be true that the properties of the black hole depicted in the movie do not conform to real-world physics, but that is simply a fact of life we must deal with as Star Trek fans. Sometimes, the writers get it right, and describe the universe we live in. Other times, they get it completely wrong for the sake of storytelling ("Threshold," anyone)? The fact is, it was only called a black hole in the movie, therefore, calling it a temporal rift, no matter how similar they might seem, would be speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 14:40, November 29, 2010 (UTC) It was also called space-time tunnel, which is not the same as a black hole. --Mark McWire 16:18, November 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::I agree that all we can do is speculate. If J.J Abrams had researched further into canon Star Trek, then we may have seen a temporal rift. I think a separate page should be created for the anomaly. --Jmanyc 23:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC) :::I disagree. It was called a "black hole," very specifically. -Angry Future Romulan 00:08, December 1, 2010 (UTC) The only thing we definitely know about black holes and time travel, that the black holes can cause temporal distortion ( ). If one assumes also that the "Black Star" from TOS says a black hole, that these holes can be uses for a slingshot effect. ( ) Therefore I am of the opinion, which is supported by the canon, that the Narada and Spock's space ship traveled through a space-time tunnel, which was just a byproduct of the black hole or the red matter. This space-time tunnel, discussed here, shares the main characteristics of the temporal rift, although he was never called so. The only substantial problem is the lack of mention of the name, required here, why you should just create an article "space-time tunnel". Then reaches a "see also" reference here and in "space-time tunnel". I think most of us can live with it and the Canon is satisfied. At least bring Spock's set enough doubt that the journey is really done by the black hole itself. Rather, it raises the question whether the technology that was used to create the black hole has been manipulated so that a space-time tunnel was being built. He is at the moment absolutely convinced that the black hole was not the reason for this journey, but some form of tunnel through space-time. So why object to the canonical Spock? This canonical sentence creates enough room for a separate article on this tunnel. I therefore agree with the idea of a separate article for this anomaly to the full. --Mark McWire 00:21, December 1, 2010 (UTC) Space Time Tunnel Since no one has argued in recent days, a sound argument, I have the article "Space time tunnel" created. The lemma is completely canonical, since the term has been so taken up by the alternative Spock, albeit in a hypothetical perspective. --Mark McWire 15:43, December 3, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I think that "stopping to repeat the same point over and over again" does not necessarily equal total acceptance of the other position. Also, I still believe that some earlier assumption about "what might be the case here" should not necessarily lead to an article be written about some generic term as if it was fact. -- Cid Highwind 13:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC) This term clearly belongs to the Star Trek vocabulary. In dispute is whether Spock says this formulation purely hypothetical or whether it refers to facts. We know from other episodes and the real physics that black holes are dead ends. They themselves are not linked to any other places. So I can only interpret that the space-time tunnel was an unintended side effect that has emerged along with the black hole. In this sense, I formulated the article. There are also existing a ton of space anomalies, which links to other places. I can already ask why the authors have necessarily taken a well-known astronomical phenomenon, which we know that this condition is not exactly fulfilled. My view is thus a compromise between the real physics and botched Canon. --Mark McWire 15:23, December 4, 2010 (UTC)